ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Evaluating machine learning models for stroke prediction based on clinical variables.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms and integrative machine learning approaches to blood-brain barrier biomarker profiling for personalized ischemic stroke management.Physiological reports · 2026Review
- Mapping the Ischemic Continuum: Dynamic Multi-Omic Biomarker and AI for Personalized Stroke Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Risk factors associated with cancer and metabolic encephalopathy in Alzheimer's disease patients.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Predicting early neurological deterioration in acute branch atheromatous disease without reperfusion therapy: a machine learning model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- The gut microbiome in diabetic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: distinct bacterial compositional shifts after hepatitis C virus eradication.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Stroke remains one of the leading causes of global mortality and long-term disability, driving the urgent need for accurate and early risk prediction tools. Traditional models such as the Framingham Stroke Risk Score have provided foundational insights into stroke prevention but are constrained by linear assumptions and limited adaptability to complex real-world data. In contrast, machine learning (ML) techniques offer the ability to model non-linear relationships and interactions among diverse clinical and demographic variables, supporting more personalized and flexible risk prediction. Methods: This study evaluates five supervised ML algorithms, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), using a publicly available dataset from Kaggle. Following class imbalance correction, models were assessed using multiple metrics including accuracy, ROC-AUC, and confusion matrices. Results: Logistic Regression and Gradient Boosting achieved the highest accuracy (95.11%) and ROC-AUC (0.836), although all models demonstrated poor recall, reflecting challenges in identifying rare stroke cases. Feature importance analysis using the Random Forest model identified age, average glucose level, and BMI as the most influential predictors of stroke, aligning with the Metabolic Syndrome Hypothesis and previous epidemiological findings. Discussion: These findings underscore both the promise and current limitations of ML in stroke risk prediction and highlight the need for future research leveraging multi-modal datasets and advanced algorithmic strategies to enhance sensitivity and clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.